To think we can’t revive the country on the backs of the poor, the struggling, or the middle class?

[ForBreezySloth]

Every time there’s an economic crisis, it seems like the burden always fall on the same groups - through tax hikes, cuts to services, and stagnant wages, while the wealthiest remain untouched. Surely a country can’t truly recover if the majority of its people are struggling just to get by? Yet time and time again, we’re told we all have to “tighten our belts” - except, conveniently, those at the top.

AIBU to think this approach isn’t sustainable or is it just the reality of how economies work?

It's important that everyone try to shoulder some of the burden of supporting public services BECAUSE it makes everyone invested in public services working well. When everyone has a stake, people are more engaged in voting wisely & holding leaders accountable.

People will always quibble and want to revise the distribution of the burden and most will insist their share of the burden is "unfair". Nevertheless, you ideally want most adults to feel they have contributed & have some entitlement to ask for the best possible services.

Lower earners are taxed less, proportionately, than lower earners in other European countries. If we want better public services everyone needs to pay more tax but lower/middle earners are more reliant on the services (and want those services to do more and more) while being unwilling to pay more tax to fund them.

But they don't have the same housing & childcare costs in other countries so can pay more tax.

Our government has been living beyond its means, borrowing on the backs of future taxpayers to pay for profligate and inefficient spending now. You can’t tax your way out of that. Increasing taxes will likely reduce economic activity and tax receipts. The only answer is a serious reckoning with spending. They need to cut inessential spending. This means being honest about what government and tax revenue is for. Ultimately it is there to provide public service for the British electorate. We aren’t a rich country with international influence any more. Our focus needs to reflect reality, not fantasy.

DH and I are both high earners, him more than me. He's going to be taking early retirement. It's no longer worth it to be working those hours with that stress. So yes, many high earners will adjust their behaviour and simply work less or leave.

DS is entering a high earning profession and is doing everything he can to apply for inter company transfers to Hong Kong, Singapore or Tokyo.

The basic principle of property rights extends to only taking the tax necessary to run the country. Take more and opportunities in your country will leave, causing a brain drain. It’s crackers.

There are huge issues in the UK that impact productivity and tax revenues. You cannot keep heaping tax burden on middle/high earner through PAYE, not just because it’s inequitable but more because it drives down productivity. I would;

• reform the tax system to smooth out cliff edges. We need a system where you pay in (even at higher levels to now) then you can take out.
• clamp down hard on companies transferring income off shore through dodgey shareholder structures.
• Clamp down on dubious R&D claims where the technology serves nobody but the ‘inventor’.
• reform the benefits system. It must be needs based and cannot include young people with low level mental health conditions - we must intervene.
• invest far more in education- it is crumbling and is in dire need of money.

We need innovative ideas and quick.

AZ is not American. In this case it’s a combination of punitive U.K. taxes and the London Stock exchange shrinking to the point where being listed there is disadvantageous. If we want successful companies like AZ to stay we need competitive tax rates.

This sums it up perfectly. It is concerning that people on 200k+ hold opinions like the pp; we don't need to "appease" the rich. It needs to be a fair society that means people can keep a roof over their heads; this trumps a rich person losing some extra pocket change.

I actually ran the numbers. Your right. I couldn’t get it to work with VAT removal. But I think that’s because I can’t show or predict the growth that could result in for SME. And sadly that’s the only way gov get any slice from the multinational shadow corps.

But it did actually work for income tax. To balance the budget the tax rate would need to be flat 61%.

If you put it up to 70% we can clear the deficit in 11 years.. After the deficit is gone I would want to keep tax as is and invest in a national wealth fund.

This broadest shoulders stuff was Labour’s line. They’ve already done the ‘one off’ tax and borrowing hike at last GE. Although they forgot tax changes behaviour and receipts are down.

So that means welfare cuts - where were they in the manifesto? And more taxes. So taxes lead to increasing the tax burden, how does that help?

People leave. I agree with the op in that the lower income can’t shoulder more, the problem is that’s what’ll they get with anti growth policies.

It looks like Reeves is looking at finance deregulation, not sure if definitely happening, but that isn’t the SMEs who have been hit, and everyone else.

Labour are scrabbling because the higher taxes haven’t yielded what they expected, so we need more taxes?

In a way Corbyn’s party is a useful addition, he pledges pretty much what the op does and it’ll give a place for those votes to go.

Btw I agree with you, quoting your post as it shows the outcome of policy.

Rapid population growth over the past 20 years has been a disaster for this country.

Importing huge amounts of poverty to improve an economy? Whose idea was that?

Stuck with it now.

What you mean is an old person's mindset? Do you think that 90% will up and go or something?

Interestingly, the biggest problem with migration isn't that it's importing poverty, but obscene wealth.

Migrants are twice as prevalent in the top 0.1% of the income distribution as anywhere in the bottom 97%.

The irregular migration and asylum seekers that many like to focus on is less of a problem than the very rich who have made money by exploiting the poor in their own country, and have come to the UK to spend it.

Making the UK less attractive to the super rich would be a good way of reducing both migration and inequality, but people prefer to vilify the poor and desperate.

My two late 20s sons don't want to live here. One is in Europe and one in South Korea.

This is a significant part of my reason for going.

I often think we've spent a lot of time blaming white men for all the problems in the UK (I worked in a university, that's the prevailing culture) and so why should they stay where they are disliked and disparaged. They're both seeing a much happier life elsewhere.

I’m sure it will trickle down any day now 😜

Funny.

Are you enjoying the prospect of more tax rises in Autumn though? After the supposed one off last time

90%? Why make stuff up? Have I posted that, no.

I do think you’re overlaying your older interpretation onto students. I don’t think there’s this love the country so we need to stay even if graduate entry is low. Younger people can more easily seek out opportunities and other countries will be attractive.

What's funny about it?

https://ifs.org.uk/publications/importing-inequality-immigration-and-top-1-percent

Oh god it's Arun Advani, the Indian university lecturer that came up with the idea of destroying British farming and family businesses. An idea the treasury kept trying to sell to chancellors unsuccessfully until Reeves comes along and agrees with the Indian academic that we must tax British farmers into oblivion and give the money to African farmers.

That's Arun Advani.

This country is now so stupid it deserves all it gets.

The low wages for lower earners is a form of subsidy for businesses.

That is why low earners can't be taxed more - because they would have no money to live on. (And pay the insane utility bills. Also, the large companies would reduce their profits.)

It is perfectly possible to increase wages for the lower earners so that they can be taxed on all their wages AND have successful small to large businesses. It works in scandinavia. There is no such thing as a tax threshold there.

Increasing the wages so low earners could pay higher income tax is a way to indirectly increase the contributions of high-profiting companies. But there is no way anyone would implement it. Political suicide all round.

Not if it means levelling down. Governments who want to maximise tax receipts would do well not to eviscerated their tax base. Also fairness doesn’t necessarily mean a flatter society. Arguably it’s fair for people to benefit from their own enterprise and unfair for them to subsidise others to such an extent that it makes working har feel pointless.

That is because you did not read it properly. I said they do love their live in their country and they will stay. Not out of duty or patriotism. But because they like it here.
They find jobs, they build a life. You know, normal life. They are not beggars. They are not entitled. They are not a burden
They are our assets.

@EasternStandard and please, do not tell me that you know two who do not want to live here and have emigrated. Or 2p.. or whatever. The vast majority stays.

Of course they are an asset, well not all but many. It’s why other countries want them too and lower grad entry and higher taxes here will see more seek out opportunities elsewhere.

Moving at 23ish is not that hard, it’s exciting and if it’s not as comparatively attractive here, why not.